Non-profit Biomedical Research Company Answers the Pro-Life Donor's Dilemma

     

For years, pro-life donors have faced an increasingly common dilemma: a desire to support worthy biomedical research to find cures for diseases like cancer and heart disease without violating their moral or pro-life convictions.

"Unfortunately, most people would be shocked if they knew the extent to which fresh aborted fetal tissue and aborted fetal cell lines are used in biomedical research," says Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life, an industry watchdog group.  "In fact, it is so widespread there are actually few, if any, institutions that pro-life people can donate to in good conscience."

Until now.  Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, (SCPI) of Seattle, WA is the only non-profit biomedical research institute that refuses to use any morally objectionable research method at any step in the process.

Founded by world renowned adult stem cell scientist Dr. Theresa Deisher, the organization's mission is "dedicated to providing scientific research, education and resources to encourage safe, moral, pro-life medicines and therapeutics."   The organization is also investigating the health consequences of aborted human DNA and cellular contaminants in medicines.

And that includes the "hot button" issue of childhood vaccines.  According to their website, www.soundchoice.org, 90% of children vaccinated in the last 10 years were most likely injected with aborted fetal DNA components.  More ominously, these fetal DNA contaminants could lead to serious health consequences and may be contributing to the rise in childhood leukemia, autism and other autoimmune disorders.

"SCPI has done the research to show it," stated Dr Deisher. "We measured the level of fetal DNA in vaccines and are now researching the consequences.  Even the FDA has acknowledged the dangers of having fetal DNA contaminants present in our vaccines.  Just how dangerous remains to be seen, but it's unconscionable not to do the research and find out."

"The equipment and research material needed is very costly," says Vinnedge.  "But not nearly as costly as it would be to society and to families affected by autism if they can't continue their research due to lack of funds."

Judie Brown, President of American Life League, a group that exposes the morally objectionable research done by some of the nation's largest medical research charities, agrees.  "We frequently get inquiries from pro-life donors about this or that medical research organization, including some of the largest and most popular charities in the country.  Donors become disillusioned as they learn that aborted fetal or embryonic cell lines are used by their favorite charity for medical research. But not anymore thanks to SCPI."

Brown sums it up this way: "If you support Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, you will be supporting a charity worthy of your donations. They are doing fantastic work."

Recently SCPI introduced a new line of merchandise touting their "Prolife Produced" insignia, a certification strategy that is being marketed to companies whose products are not developed, discovered or contaminated with aborted fetal or embryonic materials.  Consumers will have peace of mind when they see that seal of approval on cosmetics and medicines they are purchasing.

"When people see that insignia on our shirts, hats, sweatshirts and baby tees they immediately smile," noted Deisher.  "It's simple, non-offensive and to the point:  after all, we are all pro-life produced!"
 
All proceeds will go toward funding their moral research programs and therapeutics.  For more information visit their website at www.soundchoice.org where you can also donate on line and order Prolife Produced merchandise including Dr Deisher's DVD on aborted fetal DNA in vaccines: Is there a link to autism?

Contact: Chris Brown
Contact: Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute

Medical Conscience: Should Hospitals Be Forced to Provide Abortions?

     

An abortion/medical conscience controversy is riling the decidedly pro choice state of Washington, presaging what I think will become one of our own most contentious bioethical controversies.  The issue involves the existence and extent of "conscience rights" for medical professionals and facilities opposed to participating in interventions that take human life.

Here's the context: Catholic Providence Health and Services has purchased a hospital, which is now refusing to perform abortions.  From Nicole Brodeur's column, "Swedish Abortion Decision: How About Respect for Patients?" published in the Seattle Times:

Swedish Medical Center is still getting blowback for its decision to stop performing elective abortions "out of respect for the affiliation" it is completing with Providence Health & Services, a Catholic, not-for-profit organization. Six little words. But, seven days later, Swedish Medical Center is still getting blowback for its decision to stop performing elective abortions "out of respect for the affiliation" it is completing with Providence Health & Services, a Catholic, not-for-profit organization.

It's not as if women are just having the door slammed in their faces. The hospital is affiliating with a Planned Parenthood clinic to ensure that women who want to stop being pregnant, can.  But that's not enough for many pro choice advocates:

Within hours of that announcement, Swedish said it would be partnering with Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest (PPGNW) to establish a nearby clinic that would provide reproductive health services, including abortions by Swedish-affiliated doctors. No matter. Women, women's groups and health-care advocates were on the phone, online and outraged. "How dare you put in peril the reproductive health care of women by relegating a solution to a difficult choice to another organization," one woman wrote on Swedish's website. "Next it will be the alleyway." She's got a point. While abortion has been legal for 38 years, no one can seem to leave it in the hospitals, on the books, or in the privacy of women's minds and bodies.

So "choice" is a one way street?

Here's what I think is really going on.  The angry abortion advocates are really furious because of the implicit message the hospital's wattery decision to refer instead of perform, sends: Abortion is morally wrong.

Brodeur uses the controversy to complain about limited access to abortion in the Washington, screaming that it means murder!

In 2008, there were 50 abortion providers in Washington, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that does sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. And yet, more than half of Washington's counties had none. So the women in these counties — 11 percent of women in the state — had to travel for an abortion. Not all of them could. When women are put in that position, it means late-term abortions, unsafe abortions, abandoned babies and, in the most desperate cases, women who outright kill their newborns, or themselves.

No, it almost always means that babies are born, who–like Steve Jobs (born to an unwed mother and given up for adoption before legalized abortion)–then have a shot at living a productive and satisfying life.

But here's the bottom line: Absent extraordinary circumstances, no medical professional should be forced to take a human life.  (Here is an articleWesley J. Smith wrote about medical conscience and its proper parameters.)

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

The Right to Die or the Duty to Die - Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You

     

The latest news from the Land of Oz (not the wizard), is that Dr. Oz, aka Dr. Mehmet Cengiz Oz, will host an upcoming episode on assisted suicide, on his Dr. OZ Show.  The main focus will be on whether or not you have the "right to die?"

According to Wikipedia, Dr. Oz got his media start as a health expert on, none other than, the Oprah Show. Wikipedia gives a portrait of Dr. Oz as a bright and accomplished individual, though with some very interesting contradictions. On the one hand, he's the director of the Cardiovascular Institute and Complimentary Medicine Program at New York's Presbyterian Hospital. On the other hand, he was awarded the 2011 James Randi Educational Foundation Media Pigasus Award; which the foundation itself states, "is for promoting nonsense". The foundation complained about Dr. Oz's support of energy medicine, faith healing and psychic mediums.  Dr. Oz holds the dubious distinction of being the only person to have received this prestigious "nonsense award" for 2 years in a row.

Now, to prepare everyone who has not yet been down the yellow-brick road of euthanasia, this scarecrow, Dr. Oz, has provided you with a helpful survey on the show's website, titled: "Should You Have The Right to Die?" Here are the 4 questions:

The 1st question on the survey is: "Should you have the "right" to die?"  The 2nd question is: "Should your family have a say in your right to die?" The 3rd question goes on to ask: "Do you believe that doctors should assist patients end their lives?" And the 4th question is: "Have you discussed your "right to die" with your family?"

Ok, now here's my question: "What is the real reason for a doctor's assistance here?"  Is the doctor there to simply give advice about methods of killing yourself?  I think most people who wish to end their lives can figure that out for themselves, as is evident with most suicides. Does the doctor give permission?  No.  It's still your "choice" - the word elect of those who promote murder these days, just as in abortion.  So what real purpose does the doctor serve? What is "assisted suicide" as opposed to other suicides?

It is simply a sly way to white-wash something that is inherently and intrinsically wrong.  If I kill myself in the privacy of my own home, I'm committing an act, which most of society would find tragic and pitiable. But, having a doctor present while I off myself, is an attempt to normalize it and remove the stigma of suicide. Suicide is then re-packaged as a mere compassionate medical decision between one and one's doctor, just as in the case of abortion.  It appears to grant social acceptance, even taking on a seemingly romantic way to end one's life.

Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name is still a rose"; did he not?    Ending one's life is still suicide, even if assisted. You can't change the nature of something with words, or how you package it.  

Now of course, Dr. Oz will use the data from the answers to this survey, to compile more justification for his agenda of normalizing suicide. 

But, how much farther down the yellow-brick road will it be, before the "right to die" becomes the "duty to die"?  Trust me, not that much farther. If and when you become a significant burden, requiring extensive care-giving, interruption to the life plans of others or financial hardships on your family and loved ones, and even an emotional drain, how long will it be before those around you believe, that it is your "duty to die"?

Some notable voices in bioethics believe, that as a matter of what they term, "distributive justice", when people reach a certain advanced age, severe disability, or very poor health, they owe it to society, their families, and yes, even themselves, to make an end of their lives. 

Futile Care Theory, aka "medical futility," has been on the bioethics movement's agenda for more than 10 years. If a patient or their family desire life-sustaining treatment, yet doctors feel that treatment is "inappropriate" based on quality of life and/or costs; they may unilaterally withhold treatment - the recent Baby Joseph case being a prime example. Joseph's doctors, supported by hospital bioethicists and administrators, told his parents that they were going to refuse all further life support.   The doctors totally and completely ignored and sought to usurp the wishes of the parents for their child's medical treatment. After a much publicized court case, Priests for Life, stepped in and was able to find a hospital that would take Baby Joseph, and give him the medical treatment his parent's wished.  But, how long will it be before there are no more hospitals left who will do this?

So, what is the point of Dr. Oz's question: "Should you have the right to die", when the ultimate agenda is not going to be about your rights at all!  It is simply the slow turning up of the temperature on the frog, leading to the complete and unalterable denial of your so called rights. 

Make no mistake, the word "futile" does not refer to the treatment - it refers to the patient!  Our lives and the lives of our loved ones, are going to be relegated to futile and burdensome, if we become seriously ill or lose our mental capacities.  The recent words of the televangelist Pat Robertson, where he gives advice for people to divorce a spouse afflicted with Alzheimer's, so that they can move on with their own lives, shocked and appalled many. But the medical profession's diagnosis will not be divorce, but medical murder. 

We should all be well advised, the "duty to die" movement is spreading, and it will not stop with the terminally ill.

Source: Lake County Right to Life

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer Challenges CBS News, Health.com to Debate Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

      

CBS News and Health.com have damaged their credibility by publishing identical statements that falsely claim the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link is a myth. Therefore, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer challenges both organizations to debate the ABC link.
 
"We expect CBS News and Health.com to duck the challenge, just as other organizations have whose leaders would rather see women die of breast cancer than expose the truth that abortion is not safe," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. "After behaving like snipers, they cut and run. They should be ashamed of themselves.
 
"Think," demanded Malec of CBS News and Health.com. "If medical texts and medical authorities say childbearing reduces breast cancer risk, then who has the greater risk - the woman who aborts or the woman who has a baby?"
 
The websites for both CBS News and Health.com falsely asserted that:
 
"Myth: Having an abortion raises your risk of getting breast cancer. Reality: Because abortion is believed to disrupt hormone cycles during pregnancy and breast cancer is linked to hormone levels, numerous studies have investigated a causal link⎯but found no conclusive evidence for one." [1,2]
 
The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute reported last week that 53 of 66 epidemiological studies reported an independent link between abortion and breast cancer, meaning that abortion leaves the breasts with more places for cancers to start (in addition to the loss of the protective effect of childbearing). That doesn't count the biological and experimental evidence that supports the link.
 
National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton co-authored a 2009 study on use of the birth control pill and triple-negative breast cancer. [3] She and her colleagues included abortion among "known and suspected risk factors" for the disease and found a statistically significant 40% increased breast cancer risk among women who had abortions. They concluded abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.
 
"Try to debunk that, CBS News and Health.com," demanded Malec.
 
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
 
References
 
1. "25 breast cancer myths busted." Health.com. Available at: http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20533364_24,00.html
 
2. "25 breast cancer myths busted." CBS News. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10009735-25.html?tag=page
 
3. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf

Contact: Karen Malec
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Students for Life of America Suffers Second Tragic Loss

     

Jon Scharfenberger, 22, a staff member at Students for Life of America (SFLA), died early this morning from injuries sustained in an Oct. 8 car crash.

Scharfenberger was with his coworker, 28-year-old Kortney Gordon, on their way back to SFLA's headquarters in Virginia from an event in Georgia when the head-on collision happened. Gordon and her preborn daughter, Sophy, died on impact, as did the driver of the other car. Two college students who were riding in the back seat of Gordon's car are expected to make full recoveries.

A native of Warwick, New York, Scharfenberger graduated from Ave Maria University this year. While in college, he served as president of his campus chapter of Students for Life, and interned for both SFLA and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.

Scharfenberger joined SFLA full-time in July, and was named director of the group's new Pregnant on Campus initiative in August. He played a crucial role in establishing a pro-life campus group at Florida International University, which saved the life of a pre-born baby just one week later.

Scharfenberger, who is survived by his parents, two sisters and one brother, died doing what he loved: On his Facebook page, he lists his position with SFLA, followed by the note, "Traveling the country saving babies!"

Contact: Karla Dial
Source: Students for Life of America

ObamaCare and abortion funding - a 'ticking time bomb'

     

The Senate and Barack Obama are standing in the way of eliminating use of federal funds for abortion -- including abortion funding under ObamaCare.
 
After a 251-172 vote Friday by the U.S. House to ban federal tax dollars for abortion under the administration's landmark healthcare reform law, the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358) now goes to the U.S. Senate. Congressman Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) points out to OneNewsNow that the law as currently written will provide tax dollars for that purpose.
 
"... ObamaCare, when phased in fully in 2014, will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs, including and especially in exchanges, resulting in more dead babies and wounded mothers than otherwise would have been the case," says the New Jersey lawmaker.
 
Senator Alan Nunnelee (R-Mississippi) supports the measure passed by the House. "ObamaCare should not have served as a vehicle for abandoning or weakening federal policies on abortion funding," he says. "Healthcare is about saving and nurturing -- not about taking human life."
 
Although the House passed the bill by a substantial margin, Senate leadership is opposed to even taking a vote -- and President Obama has promised to veto it if it does reach his desk. OneNewsNow asked Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee if there does not appear to be a chance of passage, why bother with the legislation?
 
"Well, because the issue is so important -- and we are hopefully building towards a victory in the future," he responds. "But we have to keep calling the attention of the American people to the problem: the ticking time bomb of ObamaCare -- which unless we can repeal it is going to cause enormous damage.
 
"And so these debates are very important," he concludes, "and it's very important that we get the members of Congress on record on these issues."
 
Johnson adds that with a presidential election next year -- and many members of Congress on the ballot as well -- it is critical that pro-life advocates keep up on what is happening on Capitol Hill.
 
"And anybody who objects to the ObamaCare law or who objects to major provisions of it, such as those involving abortion, ought to be paying attention to how their elected representatives are voting on those matters," he argues.
 
The pro-life spokesman explains that is how the representative form of democracy works -- and he believes debates such as the use of federal tax dollars for abortion are an important part of that process.

Contact: Charlie Butts
source: OneNewsNow

Many babies not given chance for Jobs' 'happy story'

     

One pro-life activist believes the passing of entrepreneur Steve Jobs brings light to the fact that every life has a contribution to make to society.
 
In 1954, a young college student named Joanne Schieble realized she was pregnant. Since she was unmarried and unwilling to halt her education, she decided to give the baby up for adoption. Paul and Clara Jobs welcomed her baby boy into their home in 1955 and named him Steven. He later went on to co-found Apple Inc. and Pixar Animation Studios.

"Most people don't realize that he was a happy story because he was adopted and he was born before Roe v. Wade," notes Yvonne Viramontes, coordinator with 40 Days for Life.

"Every single person is worth their life here; we need them," she contends. "Other children who are aborted these days could have been great people like him. So although he was able to be adopted, many are not these days."

But the pro-lifer laments that Jobs supported Planned Parenthood while he was alive.

"Poor babies that are being aborted, we don't know if they're the ones who are going to cure cancer or [write] special songs, [or have] special talents… All of these poor babies are being aborted now and are not given the chance to show us what a wonderful world this could be," Viramontes regrets.

She adds that Jobs was one of several notable figures who were adopted, including Nelson Mandela, Nancy Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Eleanor Roosevelt, and John Lennon, among others.

Contact: Becky Yeh
Source: OneNewsNow

Where public stands on abortion protocol

     

A national poll recently conducted and released by Angus Reid Public Opinion shows that only 21 percent of people believe abortion ought to be legal in all cases.
 
The poll tracks closely with others from the last three decades, and Derrick Jones of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tells OneNewsNow the results are similar with what Gallup found earlier this year, "that people really are rejecting the idea of abortion for any reason throughout the entire pregnancy. It also shows that until we get to a point that we can welcome the unborn child in life and protect them in law, the American people are very supportive of laws that protect both mothers and their unborn children," he adds.

The Angus Reid poll also shows that the vast majority of people surveyed, whether Democrat or Republican, support parental consent before an abortion is provided to an underage girl. Jones says it makes sense to the public that if a girl is unable to get her ears pierced without parental consent, the same consideration should be in place in the case of abortion. Even so, Democrats are more likely than Republicans (25% to 12%)  to favor abortion, saying they support keeping all abortions legal.

"This is a medical procedure, a surgical procedure that has inherent physical risks, emotional risks, [and] mental risks, and this is a time where parents absolutely need to be involved and be there for their child," the NRLC spokesman contends. "So, the support for having parents involved certainly is not surprising -- and again, it tracks with opinion polls that we've seen over the past two decades."

And Jones emphasizes that the issue is not political; instead, it is a matter of human rights.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow 

HB 3027 Will Promote Abortion, Force out Abstinence in Sex Education

Oppose Illinois House Bill 3027, the new sex education bill.

    

The bill is supported by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NOW, and numerous other Illinois pro-abortion organizations.  The bill will be taken up in the fall veto session, which begins on October 25.  HB 3027 has already been passed by the Illinois Senate.
 
HB 3027 mandates that every public school teaching sex education in grades 6 – 12 must teach comprehensive sex education.  Lake County Right to Life has numerous major problems with this bill, including:
 
It mandates curriculum promoting abortion, stating that it is legal, safe, and parents don't have to know about it.
 
It calls for "medically accurate" sex education, but the curriculum misinforms students by telling them that "morning after pills" don't cause abortion.
 
It will force abstinence programs out of the public schools by taking away local control and mandating the teaching of contraception and condoms.  Public schools in Illinois already have the ability to teach comprehensive sex education if they wish.
 
It does not follow the Centers for Disease Control recommendations that a) abstinence be prioritized and b) school health education policies and programs be locally determined and consistent with community values.  Many communities in Illinois have strong Judeo-Christian value systems and would have their teachings violated by the requirement that contraception be taught to children.
 
It promotes policies proven to be ineffective in California school programs.  Since 1992, California has taught only comprehensive sex education, while Illinois has allowed abstinence education.  This has resulted in California having a much higher teen pregnancy rate than Illinois (96 teens per thousand versus 60 teens per thousand).
 
Illinois will not be stepping forward, but backward in the requirement to teach comprehensive sex education in Illinois public schools. Why should Illinois legislators adopt the failed policies of California and call it progress?
 
We urge concerned citizens to contact their state representatives and ask them to vote No on HB 3027.

Click here to find the contact information for your representative.

House approves Protect Life Act despite Obama veto threat

     

U.S. House Passes Protect Life Act, 251-172!    

Take Action!
 
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the NRLC-backed Protect Life Act (H.R. 358) by a vote of 251-172.
 
The Protect Life Act would nullify the multiple abortion-expanding provisions of the 2010 federal health care law ("ObamaCare").
 
On October 5, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius vehemently defended the 2010 health care law in a speech to a NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraiser, saying 'we are in a war' with critics of the law.   On October 12, the White House issued a formal veto threat against the Protect Life Act.  "President Obama won enactment of ObamaCare in 2010 partly by pretending that the bill did not expand abortion -- but now the mask is coming off," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
 
In an October 6 letter to U.S. House members, NRLC noted that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148, "ObamaCare") ". . . contained multiple provisions that provide authorizations for subsidies for abortion, both implicit and explicit, and also multiple    provisions that opened doors to abortion-expanding administrative actions."  The Protect Life Act would prohibit the use of any PPACA-authorized funds for abortions or to subsidize health plans that cover abortions, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest.   The Protect Life Act would not restrict the sale or purchase of insurance coverage for abortion with non-federal funds.
 
During today's debate, opponents of the bill repeatedly claimed that it would allow hospitals to deny women "emergency" abortions.  In reality, the bill does not change the longstanding federal law in question, called EMTALA, which requires that in an "emergency" a hospital must do its best to stabilize both the pregnant mother and her "unborn child" (which is the term used in the statute).  The Protect Life Act allows federal funding of an abortion required to save a mother's life.
 
The Protect Life Act is sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Il.).  On today's vote on passage, the bill was supported by 236 Republicans and 15 Democrats.  It was opposed by 170 Democrats and two Republicans.

To read the October 6 letter sent by NRLC to House members in support of the bill, click here.  To read detailed testimony by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, presented to a House subcommittee in February 2011, about why H.R. 358 is needed, click here.  To view a video of the February hearing, click here.

Former abortion worker describes life at Boston Planned Parenthood

     

Catherine Adair, a former Boston Planned Parenthood worker, shared her story at the Value Voters Summit on Saturday.

Now a Catholic stay-at-home mom and pro-life advocate, Adair described her reaction to footage showing Planned Parenthood's complicity in child sex abuse, as well as gruesome details from her time working at a PP abortion center where business was "all abortions, all day, every day."

Adair's comments were made as a panel member in the breakout session titled, "Exposing and Defunding Planned Parenthood, America's Abortion Giant." The other panel members were Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Live Actions' Lila Rose, whose video Adair referred to.

Click here for the video.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com

Human Cloning Research Breakthrough Is Unethical

     

The Washington Post headline is misleading: "Scientists Report Possibly Crucial Advance in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research." In actuality, this is a potential advance in human cloning research.(Scientists have long known how to create ES cell lines from destroyed embryos.)

The story, byline Rob Stein, begins vaguely about what was actually done. From the story:

Scientists reported Wednesday that for the first time they used cloning techniques to coax human eggs to generate embryonic stem cells containing the genes of specific patients.

And there's a junk biology bias penalty flag thrown on the field!  If the researchers had obtained stem cells from eggs, it would be process known as parthenogenesis, that is, stimulating the egg to divide.  But that isn't what this was.  It was a form of human cloning via a procedure similar–but different as we shall see below–to somatic cell nuclear transfer.  SCNT, the process that created Dolly, makes an embryo asexually. That means the stem cells were obtained from embryos, not eggs.

Back to the story, the reporter then changes his story.  The cells didn't come from eggs, but "mutant" embryos.

At the same time, the researchers made the cells by producing and then destroying mutant embryos, whose moral status immediately became a matter of sharp debate.

How were they "mutant?" When the scientists tried to create embryos via standard SCNT, they failed.  So rather than taking the nucleus out of the egg before inserting the somatic cell nucleus–as is usually done in SCNT cloning–they left it in.  That meant the resulting embryo was "triploid," that is it had 23 extra (69 rather than 46) chromosomes.  That makes these clearly useless in treatments.  And as for use in drug or other patient specific research, we already have induced pluripotent stem cells that have the normal set of chromosomes.  So, this is more a novel proof of theory, it seems to me, than an actual breakthrough.

So, that means the embryo could never have become a baby, right? Nope. Triploid babies are occasionally born (although they usually miscarry).  It is a terminal condition, but they can live for weeks, or even months, after birth.  From a scientific paper published in 2005:

Triploidy is estimated to occur in 3% of recognized human conceptuses. Most triploids are aborted spontaneously between 7 and 17 weeks of gestation, while those who proceed to live birth die at an early postnatal stage (Hasegawa et al., 1999). Twenty different clinical features have been described in 69,XXX triploid infants (Doshi et al., 1983). According to the literature, triploid cases with a survival of more than 60 days are very rare (Sherard et al., 1986). In this report we present a case of a 69,XXX triploid infant who survived for 164 days. This is the longest survival reported for this condition to date in Greece. A review of the literature uncovered six cases of a 69,XXX triploid infant who survived more than 45 days.

These children are not "mutants." They are fully equal human beings born with a terminal disability.

So, this is what I think: Human  cloning is intrinsically unethical because it creates human beings (or, if you prefer, human organisms) as a method of manufacture.  This process is also, because it creates a human life for the purpose of destroying it in research.

And then there is another problem: These scientists paid women for their eggs to allow their research:

The research was possible because for the first time scientists paid women for their eggs for human embryonic stem cell research, stirring worries about women being exploited and putting their health at risk. At the same time, the researchers made the cells by producing and then destroying mutant embryos, whose moral status immediately became a matter of sharp debate.

Yes, as the award winning documentary, Eggsploitation, (produced by the CBC, for which I am a paid consultant) clearly demonstrates, egg extraction can be very dangerous to women's health–potentially including death.  Egg selling is now allowed in New York, which is how these researchers obtained the gametes.  It should be outlawed, and indeed, is generally deemed unethical for use in biotechnological research. Even the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine doesn't permit it (although watch for a push to allow that to change).

So, this seems the bottom line:

Scientists still have not succeeded in creating human embryos via usual SCNT processes, at least not that were maintained to the blastocyst stage of embryonic development.

The 69 chromosome stem cells derived from the cloning procedure are of limited value in and of themselves, although Stein reports that the scientists said the advance could be used to "decipher how eggs reprogram genes."

IPSCs are already producing patient specific, tailor made pluripotent stem cells for use in drug testing and disease research, which we were once told would require human cloning to do

Here's the macro bottom line: Even if IPSCs eventually provide every benefit supposedly to be obtained from human cloning for experimentation (therapeutic cloning), many scientists would shrug and keep on cloning anyway.  That's because the ultimate agenda goes far beyond stem cell research and into Brave New World technologies that require cloning, e.g., genetic engineering, fetal farming and experimentation, and eventually cloning to produce babies.  Indeed, some bioethicists already support allowing cloning and gestating to birth.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Pro-life '180' film goes viral, changes minds

     

Click here to view the video.

Several people had no idea who Adolf Hitler was. Others admitted they would murder people in a death camp to save themselves. And after a series of wrenching moral dilemmas posed in a documentary that compares abortion to the holocaust, several pro-choice Americans made a 180-degree turn in a web video that has gone viral on the internet.

The video, called "180," features evangelist and author Ray Comfort and has amassed more than 750,000 views on YouTube in just two weeks. It equates abortion to the murder of Jews in concentration camps, alternating between man-on-the-street interviews, grainy footage of Nazi rallies, and graphic images of bodies in death camps.

"We're talking about a holocaust in America, in our country, that's sanctioned by the government," Comfort, a Jewish Christian, said in the film.

While "180" exposes peoples' lack of knowledge about the holocaust (one man asked if Hitler was an actor) and also features the street-preaching evangelism for which Comfort has become known, its main focus is dismantling the moral justifications people give for abortion.

Comfort posed moral dilemmas to people he interviewed, asking, for example, how people would respond if a Nazi officer pointed a gun at them and told them to use a bulldozer to bury alive some Jews who had been shot.

"I'd rather die not doing that, knowing that I was the cause," one woman said.

Comfort turned the dilemma around by asking about abortion. The film shows footage of an unborn baby's heart beating at six weeks, six days.

"When does it become a life?" he asked one woman.

"That's a tough one," the woman, who was pro-choice, responded.

Comfort then made a parallel: "I'm a construction worker and I see a building and I say to you, 'I'm going to blow up that building in a minute. There's a possibility there is somebody in there, but I don't know. But I'm going to blow it up anyway.' What would you say to me?"

Just as the construction worker should not blow up the building, Comfort argued, those who aren't certain when life begins should oppose abortion.

One woman said she didn't know when life begins but that an unborn child isn't actually a baby until after three months.

"Hitler declared Jews as non-humans, and that's what you're doing when you're saying, 'It's not a baby until three months,'" Comfort replied. "That's what I think. It's very subjective. And if you're not sure, it's taking a terrible risk with somebody else's life."

When another woman speculated that an unborn baby with a birth defect would have a bad quality of life if born, Comfort turned the idea around on her.

"The Nazis are in front of you," he said. "They're going to kill kids with Down syndrome. They're gonna kill them all. [The Nazis actually] did this. You think that's OK, then?"

"No, absolutely not," she replied.

"They [have] a bad quality of life," Comfort said, playing devil's advocate.

"Definitely not," reiterated the woman on her opposition to shooting them. "And who's to say that they have a bad quality of life?"

For those who said they were personally opposed to abortion but believed women should be able to choose, Comfort argued that such a stance was similar to saying they disagreed with what Hitler did but believed he had the right to choose.

"I'd like you to feel like you would in Germany when Jews are being killed all around you," he told one woman. "You'd be horrified, and we've got a holocaust in America, where real babies are being murdered because of a woman's choice, and it's legal."

Regardless of the justification people in the documentary initially gave for abortion, most of them, by the end of Comfort's interview, concluded that abortion is wrong.

"So have you just changed your mind about abortion?" he asked the woman who earlier told him an unborn child isn't actually a baby until three months.

"Yes I have," she replied.

To one pro-choice woman who said everyone needed to rise up against Hitler and the killing of Jews, Comfort asked if she thought everyone should do the same on the issue of abortion.

"I think you have a valid point there," she said. "I never paralleled those two."

More than 53 million unborn babies have been killed in the 37 years since Roe v. Wade, according to the video. As an image of Hitler flashed on the screen, Comfort urged viewers never to vote for politicians who advocate abortion.

"Are you gonna vote differently and think differently about this?" he asked the woman. "Yeah, I think I would," she replied. "I think I definitely would. Because you're right. I had just said about the holocaust, 'Where was the world?' If everyone would have banded together, [they could have made] a difference."

Contact: John Evans
Source: Baptist Press

Will House 'protect life'?

     

The U.S. House will vote this week on whether to "de-abortionize" ObamaCare, and a national pro-life organization is trying to show representatives why doing so is a good idea.
 
The ObamaCare law enacted last year contains multiple provisions to subsidize abortion and open doors to abortion-expanding actions by various agencies of the federal government. But Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tells OneNewsNow the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), would correct all of that.

"It is similar to something called the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that the House of Representatives approved in 2009 but did not become part of the final healthcare law because it was blocked by President Obama and by pro-abortion Democratic senators," Johnson explains.

And he points out that despite the fact that the administration denies that abortion coverage is part of ObamaCare, it is there. In fact, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius spoke at a recent fundraising event in Chicago for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

"Secretary Sebelius said -- quote -- 'we are at war' -- unquote -- with critics of the healthcare law," the pro-lifer cites. "So, she understands and NARAL understands that this is an abortion-expanding bill."

Johnson's organization reports that a post-election poll from The Polling Company in November 2010 shows that 58 percent of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion at any time and for any reason.

So the NRLC sent a letter last week to members of the House, noting that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "contained multiple provisions that provide authorizations for subsidies for abortion … and also provisions that opened doors to abortion-expanding administrative actions." But H.R. 358, the group points out, "contains important conscience protections for pro-life healthcare providers."

The House is to vote on the Protect Life Act later this week.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

ACTION ALERT – U. S. House Takes up Protect Life Act on Oct. 13

    

Click here to Take Action

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up the National Right to Life-backed Protect Life Act (H.R. 358) on or about Thursday, October 13, 2011. This bill would correct the numerous abortion-expanding provisions of the federal health care law ("ObamaCare") enacted in early 2010. The bill, sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), is similar to the "Stupak-Pitts Amendment" which initially passed the House in 2009, but which was kept out of the final health care law due to opposition from pro-abortion Democratic senators and President Obama.

Please click the "Take Action!" link above to send a message to your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, urging him or her to support the Protect Life Act and to oppose all attempts to weaken the bill. You can modify the suggested message as you see fit.

To read the October 6 letter sent by National Right to Life to House members in support of the bill, click here. To read detailed testimony by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, presented to a House subcommittee in February 2011, about why H.R. 358 is needed, click here.

Tragedy strikes the college pro-life movement

    

Kortney Blythe Gordon and her pre-born child, Sophy, were killed in a head-on collision while traveling back from a Georgia SFL conference on Saturday night.
 
Kortney was an extremely passionate advocate for the rights of pre-born children. She worked tirelessly at Students for Life of America to spread the pro-life message to all college students across the country.
 
The pro-life movement lost a valuable asset and a woman who truly loved life!
 
Kortney was scheduled to speak at this year's Midwest Pro-Life Summit. SFLI will be dedicating this year's Summit in honor of Kortney and Sophy.
 
In fact, Kortney spoke at the Students for Life of Illinois Summit last year and I am moved as I remember talking with her. We talked about the end of abortion and she was so confident and excited to see the end of abortion in her lifetime.
 
She considered herself to be and truly was an abortion abolitionist.
 
I am still looking forward, with Kortney's same confidence, to the end of abortion in my lifetime. I'm sad that she was not able to see it because her life was cut short, but I'm confident that she will be helping our movement to abolish abortion from heaven.
 
Please join the SFLI team as we mourn the death of Kortney and Sophy. Please join us in prayer for their family, the SFLA staff and the others who were injured in the accident today and during this very difficult time.
 
Pray for Jon Scharfenberger
 
Kortney and Sophy were not the only ones in the car. There were some students and another SFLA staffer, Jon Scharfenberger.
 
There aren't many details about Jon, but we do know that he is in critical condition after the accident.

Contact: John-Paul Deddens
Source: Students for Life of Illinois

On October 13th History will be Made, as 'Live' Ultrasounds will be Performed on Pregnant Women in the United States Capitol Building

     

"Voices from the Womb" will kick off their national campaign in the Congressional Auditorium on October 13, at 11:00 A.M.

For the first time ever, the voices of pre-born children will literally be "heard" on Capitol Hill.
 
"Voices from the Womb" marks the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade as members of Congress will have the chance to clearly see the humanity of the child and work together to end the violence of abortion and establish human rights and justice for all.
 
After October 13, "Voices from the Womb" will begin a national tour performing live ultrasounds in schools, churches, state capitals, legislative hearings and public events.
 
The main sponsor of "Voices from the Womb" is the Stanton Project, which is part of Stanton Healthcare, a life-affirming clinic started by women to reach women.
 
"Voices from the Womb" reinforces the fact that through out history women have always been at the forefront in speaking out against violence and embracing equality and human rights for all.
 
The co-sponsors of "Voices from the Womb" are The Christian Defense Coalition and The National Pro-life Center.
 
Brandi Swindell, Founder and President of Stanton Healthcare, states,

"Voices from the Womb reaffirms the truth that women have always been at the forefront in speaking out against violence and embracing equality and human rights for all.

"Early feminist and suffragette leader, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, called abortion an evil and said, 'When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.'
 
"For the first time, our political leaders will have the chance to view first hand the humanity of the child and work together to protect the weakest members of our society.
 
"I invite all women who consider themselves pro-choice to step away from the dark ages and the wrong side of history and join with people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and embrace justice for all."

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, adds,

"We believe the Voices from the Womb project will expedite the crumbling of Roe v. Wade as America and her political leaders see the humanity of the pre-born child and the reality that life clearly begins at conception.
 
"When Roe was decided in 1973, there was a real argument going on about the humanity of the pre-born child and when life begins. However, with the amazing scientific advances over the past 40 years in fetology, ultrasound technology and modern medicine those arguments are obsolete and archaic.  It is now clear that life and the humanity of the child begins at conception.
 
"So we invite the pro-choice community to come out of their caves, stop believing that the world is flat and  embrace modern medicine and science.  Let us work together for a world in which human rights are given to all."
 
Father Paul Schenck, Director of the National Pro-life Center, comments,
 
"Technology now gives us such a magnificent portrait, not to mention sound, of the child's life before birth, that there is no reason to wonder whether this is a baby or not.
 
"The baby is alive and well, until the abortionist invades her world and destroys her life.  It's time to banish abortions along with lynching and dueling.  It belongs to a darker era."

Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney and Brandi Swindell
Source: Voices from the Womb

Abortion-mental illness link needs gov't attention

     

The Elliot Institute is calling for a hearing concerning the ignored link between abortion and higher rates of mental illness that the research group feels is long overdue.
 
Dr. David Reardon heads the Elliot Institute, an organization that conducts original research on the effects of abortion on women, men, families, and society. He suggests that an exhaustive study in The British Journal of Psychiatry and the fact that former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop recommended that it be funded 22 years ago show that the hearing is both necessary and long overdue.

"The reason it's especially timely now is that a study has just been published by the British Royal College of Psychiatrists that includes a meta-analysis of 22 studies that shows that abortion may be a cause of ten percent of mental health problems being treated [in] women, and up to 35 percent of suicidal behavior among women," says Reardon.

He believes the federal government ought to pay attention to the study that covers nearly 900,000 women from six countries, and he urges it to update the publications that fail to recognize the serious consequences of abortion. For example, he notes that women who aborted are 81 percent more likely to experience mental health problems and 55 percent more likely than women who delivered an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy to have problems.

"Well, the problem is it's always been so politically correct to pretend that abortion doesn't harm women," the Elliot Institute founder notes. "This is a major study published by a major journal, yet it received almost no coverage in U.S. media. If the results had shown that carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term was associated with higher psychological issues, that would have been front-page news."

So to help give Congress a nudge to conduct the hearings, Reardon is calling on the public to sign a petition found on his organization's website.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

More to birth-control mandate than meets the eye

     

Human Life International (HLI) is drawing attention to the fact that a majority of a medical committee responsible for mandating ObamaCare's contraception coverage without co-pay are also monetary contributors to the abortion lobby.
 
Arland Nichols, national director of HLI, tells OneNewsNow his group determined that none of the members of the Institute of Medicine committee, which is composed of members of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, have ever financially supported a Republican or a pro-life candidate.

"They're board members of NARAL; they win awards at NARAL. They're board members of Planned Parenthood; they run Planned Parenthoods," he reports about what is "clearly a very biased make-up for this committee."

In fact, he says 11 of the 15 committee members have clear pro-abortion leanings, but "the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine was accepted wholesale" by the Department of Health and Human Services, and it will be firm by 2012, if not corrected.

"It's going to stand in law, which I think shows one of the failed flaws of ObamaCare as written," Nichols decides. "Basically, they signed a blank check, and committees like this decide what gets paid for [and] what doesn't. You know, it's really taken away from the consumer of healthcare, if you will, and from the patient."

So, the committee's ideological roots are being imposed on consumers, regardless of their religious or ethical beliefs. In addition, the HLI national director points out that the mandate is contrary to the consciences of those in the medical profession who oppose birth control and the morning after pill, as well those of conscience in the insurance industry.

However, even though the public comment period is over, the approval of HR 1179, a bill currently before the House, would provide conscience protections.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

RU-486 -- fed. judge 'vacating' FDA protections

     

State attorneys are trying to decide whether to appeal a federal judge's decision declaring unconstitutional an Idaho law that requires a doctor to dispense the abortion drug RU-486.
 
The ruling flies in the face of the Federal Drug Administration's (FDA) instruction to only administer the drug during the first trimester of pregnancy and to require two doctor visits -- the first before a patient takes the pill to assess the age of the baby, and the second after use of the drug to make sure that all of the baby has been evacuated from the mother to protect her health and life.

"Those protections are now vacated by the pen of a federal judge … who has not carefully considered the consequences to women and girls of that action," laments David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life.

He is among those who do not understand how the law could be considered unconstitutional.

"The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that it is not unconstitutional to require a physician involvement in an abortion procedure," Ripley notes. But "part of the difficulty is that we live in the Ninth Circuit," he concludes, citing the liberal nature of that appeals court.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Pro-lifers prepared to put on red

     

October 18 will be the eighth annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity, when students worldwide will protest abortion.
 
Campaign president Bryan Kemper of Stand True ministries says that when the initiative first began, 300 campuses participated. But last year, more than 4,000 campuses in 28 countries took part in the day of prayer and solidarity. He says there is an explosion of pro-life support among young people who believe that life is precious.

"When I first got involved in the pro-life movement over 20 years ago, there [were] some young people and some different things going on," Kemper accounts. "But over the last 20 years, I've seen such an explosion of pro-life youth around the country."

To commemorate the movement, many students wear red armbands, and others place red duct tape across their mouths. Kemper believes the effort is making a difference.

"Last year, we heard back from 64 girls who canceled their abortions in one day. Sixty-four lives saved," he reports. "Sixt;y-four young women spared the agony that they might go through later in life…"

And he believes several others followed suit, but did not contact his organization to share about it.

Contact: Bob Kellogg
Source: OneNewsNow 

Pro-life rally in Washington: babies go to Congress

     

Women have rallied in America's capital with their babies rescued from abortion to express their gratitude for the compassionate work of pregnancy help centers.
 
Heartbeat International, which operates pregnancy help centers across the U.S., is being represented by a pro-life rally called Babies Go to Congress. In support of pregnancy help centers, mothers from five states are in the nation's capital with their babies who were saved from abortion.
 
Spokesperson Virginia Cline tells OneNewsNow they will be meeting with members of Congress while they are there. She says, "[they will] share about the compassionate work of pregnancy help centers and share their gratitude that they have this child with them now. Their main message is very clear and concise. It's that pregnancy help centers are good for America."
 
The group is not asking for members to pursue funding for the centers, but just to recognize their importance. So far, laws regulating the centers have been ruled unconstitutional when brought before federal courts, but Heartbeat International seeks continued protection from Congress.
 
"We would ask that they would protect pregnancy help centers," Cline explains. "Unfortunately, we've come under a bit of attack lately and we just want the members of Congress to hear firsthand from the women who have been served by pregnancy centers that we're doing a great job."
 
In addition, Heartbeat International hopes this rally will let women in crisis pregnancies know they are loved and not alone. Their goal is to help them not feel they must choose abortion because of personal decision or coercion.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

National Right to Life Urges U.S. House to Pass the "Protect Life Act"

     

Bill would apply Hyde Amendment principles to Obama Health Care Law
 
WASHINGTON – The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life groups across the country, today sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives urging them to vote for the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), when it comes to the floor for a vote next week.  National Right to Life intends to include the vote in its scorecard of key pro-life roll calls of the 112th Congress.
 
As the letter notes, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148) "…contained multiple provisions that provide authorizations for subsidies for abortion, both implicit and explicit, and also multiple provisions that opened doors to abortion-expanding administrative actions."  National Right to Life's letter observes that the Protect Life Act "…would apply the pro-life principles of the Hyde Amendment to every component of the PPACA, and contains important conscience protections for pro-life health care providers as well."
 
Public opinion polling conducted during the congressional debate over the bill generally found Americans opposed to the use of federal funds to pay for or subsidize abortion coverage.  A post-election poll conducted by The Polling Company in November 2010 found 58% were opposed to "using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion at any time and for any reason."
 
"The Protect Life Act is similar to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which passed the House in 2009, but was not included in the final law because of opposition by pro-abortion Senate Democrats and President Obama," said National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.  "The Administration's 2010 pretense that ObamaCare did not expand abortion grows more tattered with each passing month.  While running for mayor of Chicago, former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel boasted of his role in devising a strategy for 'the Stupak Amendment not to exist by law.'  Only yesterday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius gave a call-to-arms speech at a NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraiser in Chicago, in which she said 'we are in a war' with critics of the law."
 
A full analysis of the need for the Protect Life Act can be found in testimony by Mr. Johnson before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 9, 2011:
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/ProtectLifeActDouglasJohnsonTestimony.pdf.

Rockford Abortion Center Closes – Let’s Close Them All!

The Northern Illinois Women's Center in Rockford had it's license suspended by the Illinois Department of Public Health last week! This is great news! It was an emergency suspension and they were fined $15,000 due to four major safety violations. These included the lack qualified staff and lack of surgical privileges at a local hospital. I thought these people claimed to care about women's health and safety… Maybe not…

While the abortion center is not necessarily closed for good, this is still great news for two reasons. First and most importantly, this abortion clinic will not be taking the lives of innocent pre-born children anymore! (At least not for a while – Remember to pray that they stay closed) Secondly, it means that someone in the Illinois Department of Public Health is actually doing their job!

Abortion is Above the Law

For a long time, abortionists have been allowed to operate with very little oversight. There are countless stories of horrific conditions in abortion centers that would never pass health code muster for any other clinic. Abortionists, however, consistently seem to get a pass. A good (yet scary) example of this is the case of Kermit Gosnell. According to an article in Slate…

The Pennsylvania Department of Health inspected Gosnell's clinic when it opened in 1979. The department was supposed to check back within a year, but there's no clear record of another inspection until a decade later. Nor is there any evidence that the evaluators, when they returned, examined Gosnell's patient files, his sanitation, his emergency equipment, his use of anesthesia, his compliance with rules of post-operative care, or the qualifications of employees who did his lab work. From 1993 on, Gosnell went completely uninspected. The grand jury says the health department "decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. … With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions." Casey was pro-life; Ridge was pro-choice.

Back to Rockford…

I'm not sure if this actually signals a change in how the IL Dept of Health will work with abortionists, but I hope it does! I'm confident that more IL abortion centers will close if there were real scrutiny by the Dept of Health. And that would be a very good thing!

Contact: John-Paul Deddens

Source: Students for Life of Illinois